1. What his most recent estimate is of the annual cost to public funds of a stand-alone identity card. [50390]

Our estimate of the average annual operating costs of issuing passports and ID cards to British citizens was published last year and at present is unchanged at £584 million. As is the case with passports, those costs will be met in the main by fees rather than by a call on public funds. I have said that within our current estimates it will be affordable to set a charge of £30 for a stand-alone identity card issued to British citizens.

If the cost is £30 for 10 years—in other words, £3 per person per year—and the benefits, according to figures agreed by the Home Office and the banks, are more than £20 per person per year, can my right hon. Friend see any rational reason why the House of Lords would have voted against the proposal on cost and benefit grounds?

I always hesitate to ascribe rationality to the House of Lords in its decisions, but it is legitimate to address the costs issues, as Members of both Houses have concerns about them. We have worked them through carefully. My hon. Friend is right to say that for a stand-alone card £3 a year is the figure that we have in mind, and the benefits of the reform would be massive for the whole country.

For the 38 million people who are likely to have to register for an ID card—those over 16 and those who have been here for more than three months—can the Home Secretary tell us what the cost will be of the combined passport and ID card? If the estimate of £5 billion over 10 years is correct, it is on my calculation likely to be in excess of £120.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. As I have indicated before, the average annual cost of passports and ID cards is unchanged at about £584 million a year. We estimate that the cost per joint passport and card would be some £93. The fees have not yet been set: they can be set only if the legislation is passed by a vote of Parliament on the precise fee regime, but £93 is our combined estimate.

Can we define the difference between Bill Gates's suggestion for the near future and what the Government suggest? Bill Gates's suggestion is for a link between the biometric information and one single card, which is a relatively simple matter. However, the Government suggest that there should be a differentiation between the information on one biometric identifier and many millions of others. The process that has been suggested by the Government is many millions of times more complicated and more expensive than what Bill Gates suggests. Can my right hon. Friend give us some information on that?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting comparison. I have not studied Bill Gates's proposal in detail, but I understand that he argues that the national identity register, which we are introducing, with its 13 biometric identifiers, would give the assurance that at some point in the future the biometric identifier itself, rather than the card, could provide the identity security that is required. Obviously, my hon. Friend is right to say that it would be simpler if we had one identity system for the whole country for every time that identity needs to be checked, but many arguments have been made in this House and elsewhere about the disadvantages of having one database for everything. Instead, we have one narrow database that enables everybody to secure their own identity, which we think is a major step forward.

The Home Secretary has told us that his estimate is £584 million per year, which is a lot of money. However, some hon. Members will be a little sceptical of Government estimates, because in the past they have been woefully out. Would the Home Secretary stake any money on the £584 million being reasonably accurate, or does he think that the figure might go up?

Actually, I think that it is accurate and likely to go down, rather than up. The nearest major IT project in the area was for the passports agency, which was widely criticised five or six years ago. Its IT programme now handles some 40 million to 44 million database files and had the most efficient public service in the country, beating major private sector providers from the consumer point of view, such as Amazon, eBay and Virgin, as the result of a major effective public sector IT investment, changing the quality of life for everyone.

According to parliamentary answers I have received, the cost of operating and maintaining the verification services is not included in the £93 charge to applicants. What is the Government's estimate of that particular cost? How much will be met by the public sector, how much is to be met by charges and what are my right hon. Friend's assumptions about the number of people who will want to use the verification services and the charge that they will be asked to bear? I understand that when potential users were offered a charge of 57p, not many were keen.

I have just published overall figures for verification and all the other services, but three sources of income will deal with the charges. The first is the fees themselves, which is why I said that fees would make up the giant's share, rather than a call on public funds. The second is a small contribution from public funds, which is the only amount that could be spent on other things—as is widely alleged—and the third is income that could be derived from contracts with organisations that use the database. Those are important factors, which is why I was able to tell the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) a moment ago that I think the figure will end up being less than £584 million, although I think that is a firm and strong estimate.

Why does not the Home Secretary demonstrate the courage of his convictions by allowing the Lords amendments on costs to stand? Surely, if his scheme is costed and affordable he should have no problem in demonstrating that before bringing it to the House for implementation?

We have no problem in demonstrating that and have done so, but the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) is of a rather more profound nature. It states that there should be a regular report to the House setting out the full cost situation so that the House can debate and consider it as it wishes. That is a rather superior way of doing what the House of Lords was edging towards. The amendment also reflects concerns expressed, fairly, on both sides of the House about whether the cost system is under control. A system of six-monthly reports is a good way of dealing with that.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman made a good point: few people really believe the Home Office numbers and the House of Lords is trying to find a way of establishing a reliable figure. Let us take things out of arcana such as the billions and House of Commons procedure. If the Home Secretary was trying to pay for a capital project, such as a house extension, and the contractor came to him and said, "I know I've overrun before on money and time. I'm not going to give an estimate because that upsets my subcontractors, but I'll let you know every six months how much I've overrun", would the right hon. Gentleman accept that contract? The answer of course is no, so why should the House of Commons accept that from him?

I must say that I think that the right hon. Gentleman has put it completely the wrong way round. If I indeed wanted work done on my house, as he suggests, I should first make a clear estimate of what I was ready to spend and on what; secondly, I would not tell the bidders how much money was available for them and, thirdly, I would establish a contract to be tendered for on a competitive basis. That is precisely the right way to give us value for money.

Let us test the process against some real figures. The right hon. Gentleman cited the passport agency, which nobody in their right mind would hold up as a serious project, so let us try some others. In the green book, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out that 54 per cent. of Government IT projects fail. Since 2001, four major projects in four Departments have gone seriously wrong; their collective budget was about £9 billion and they overran by £33.9 billion—nearly £34 billion. Can the Home Secretary name one IT project costing more than £1 billion that was on time and on cost and delivered what it was supposed to?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the passport agency, which has done precisely that. It is a ridiculous state of affairs for the right hon. Gentleman to assert that no Government can ever organise an IT project in the interests of the country. I am perfectly well aware that there are major issues in both the public and private sectors about major IT projects. As somebody originally from the private sector, the right hon. Gentleman will know that that is the case and he is right to say, in terms of his first question, that we should have a proper contractually based tendering process, which is precisely what we have.

2. Whether his Department is planning to amend the law on international arrest warrants. [50391]

The Government are currently considering a range of issues relating to the issuing of arrest warrants in international cases, but have not yet concluded what changes, if any, are required to current legislation. Any proposals for amending the current legislation would be a matter for Parliament.

The Minister will be aware of press reports that the Government are considering removing the right of an individual victim to apply to the magistrates court for an arrest warrant against the alleged perpetrator of war crimes. If that right were removed, does he agree that it would leave it open for the UK Government to decide not to proceed against certain alleged war criminals simply because to do so might embarrass a foreign Government? Does he agree that that does not square with the Government's duty, under the Geneva convention, of universal jurisdiction?

Let me begin by assuring my hon. Friend that the Government stand firm behind the principle of the international arrest warrant system and are clear that the UK will never provide safe haven to those guilty of atrocities, but she refers to the process by which international arrest warrants are secured. They can be applied for and granted to private individuals by a district judge, the effect of which is that someone can be arrested and detained with no immediate prospect of any charge being brought. The balance must be right, and the question is whether the prosecuting authority that is required to bring the case should have a role in whether the person is arrested, but I have heard what my hon. Friend has said, as has the Home Secretary, and we will, of course, take her views on board in taking the matter forward.

What discussions has the Home Office had recently with the Israeli Government about General Almog? Is the Home Office in discussion with other countries about the enforcement of international arrest warrants on their citizens?

The Home Office has had discussions with the Israeli authorities, following the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and has held discussions with a range of parties who have had an interest in that case. As I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), the issue is whether there is an inconsistency and whether the authorities that would be responsible for bringing a prosecution should have a role in the arrest. It is important to point out that we may be talking about individuals who are not normally resident in the UK and are not under investigation by the British police, and there could be very real practical difficulties in bringing evidence to this country about whether a prosecution should happen here. My point is simply about whether it is right that the prosecuting authorities have a role in deciding whether an arrest should take place in the first place, given that that would deprive an individual of their liberty for a serious amount of time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if someone from another country comes here and it is found through the great good sense of a district judge that the person may be guilty of war crimes, it is our duty as a nation to prosecute them properly and that, in considering whether the law should be changed, we should weigh in the balance very heavily the great good sense and experience of district judges?

I can say to my hon. Friend that of course the Government remain absolutely committed to the principle that those guilty of atrocities should not find a safe haven in this country. I would also say to her, though, that the duty to prosecute those accused of atrocities falls quite rightly to the public authorities of this country. In hearing what she says and in agreeing with her that the onus needs to be on ensuring that those responsible face up to their actions, we need to consider whether the public authorities that would be responsible for mounting any prosecution should have a role in deciding whether that person should be arrested at the beginning of the process.

3. What discussions his Department has had with police authorities in the north-east of England about the start-up and running costs of the proposed amalgamated police force. [50392]

We have been working closely with the police authorities in the north-east and the Association of Police Authorities nationally. We have received business cases from the north-east region, which include both start-up and ongoing costs. We have been working with experts on the financial detail of those business cases to assess the costs of merger. The Home Secretary and myself met with chief constables and chairs from the north-east on 6 February to discuss the way forward.

Given that Northumbria council tax payers currently have a police force that meets Government criteria in both size and performance, what indication can the right hon. Lady give of the amount by which council tax will rise in the Northumbria area, first, so that it equalises the precepts of the other forces and, secondly, to meet the start-up costs of reorganisation? What figure does she suggest?

First, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the protective services assessment from Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary says that the one viable option to go forward is a regional strategic force. I also emphasise that the Northumbria police force's case said:

"There are clear operational benefits of moving to a regional strategic force in particular in relation to the ability to invest in level 2 protective services."

Although the right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about financing and the equalisation of precepts, I remind him that this is about trying to get improved services for the people of Northumbria, as well as those across the region. We have a working group that is looking at start-up and precept costs, as well as ongoing costs, and we are looking at a number of different models, but this is about not simply having a larger force, but being able to release resources to invest in better policing for the people in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and the rest of the region.

The cost of the four regional mergers that the Home Secretary announced last week has been estimated at over £177 million. Once again, the Government are proceeding with restructuring without any idea of the cost, which will fall largely on local taxpayers. When asked about mergers on 25 January, the Prime Minister said:

"It is not a question of forcing them through".—[Official Report, 25 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1426.]

If any of the police authorities in the affected regions object to being amalgamated, will the Minister therefore give an undertaking, in accordance with the Prime Minister's pledge, not to force those mergers through compulsorily? Or is it, once again, a question of the Prime Minister's words counting for nothing?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he asserts that we do not have regard to the costs. In many cases, the costs that are coming in look as though they will achieve payback over a period of two or three years, not the 10 or 20 years that was first assessed. As long ago as 1993, his party said:

"A large number of separate forces inevitably means that they duplicate facilities and headquarters structures. It is questionable whether 43 separate organisations are now needed to run police operations."

That was his party then, and the leader of his party has recently said—

rose—

Order. That is it.

4. How many of those convicted of a criminal offence in the last year for which figures are available were employed within the emergency services at the time of their offence. [50393]

Statistics are not maintained centrally on the occupation of persons convicted of criminal offences. Figures collated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission indicate that in the last year for which figures are available—2003–04—177 police officers were convicted of criminal offences, 122 of which were traffic offences.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I invite him to look at the issue from a slightly different angle? He will know that post-traumatic stress disorder is increasingly being recognised in the emergency services generally and in the police force particularly and that, in some cases, it can lead to domestic violence, alcoholism and, through that, to other offences. Will he look into what his Department is doing to ensure that those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in the police force, are looked after and supported to ensure that the consequences of that condition are minimised wherever possible?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very constructive suggestion, which I will consider carefully. I am very happy to discuss the matter with him in greater detail. I am pleased that the thrust of his question is one of support for people in our emergency services. They face some very difficult situations and they need good occupational health and the kind of support that he described. I very much welcome his proposal.

5. What consultations he has undertaken with ethnic minority communities on the Terrorism Bill. [50394]

The Government did not undertake consultation specifically with ethnic minority communities on the provisions in the Terrorism Bill partly because the timetable for bringing the legislation forward was accelerated in the wake of the July bombs and partly because the Bill goes to the entire community rather than specific communities. However, in order to provide ethnic minority and other communities with an opportunity to express their views on the Bill other than through their representatives in Parliament, the Government have asked the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, to consider the impact of the Bill specifically on community and race equality issues.

I thank the Minister for that reply and praise the Government for making immense efforts to talk to ethnic minority communities and to build up an excellent dialogue with them. I recently met members of the Hindu community who expressed their concerns that they have not been involved in consultation and their concerns about the legislation. May I urge the Minister to talk to the Hindu community and make them feel part and parcel of the integral discussions that he has been having?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The point that he raises is entirely fair. There has been some concern expressed among some non-Muslim ethnic minority communities that perhaps attention has been focused too much on the Muslim community. However, we do not accept that. Clearly we have done much with the Muslim community, but if we have to do more with other communities, we will. My hon. Friend will know that we regularly meet the Hindu Council, the Hindu Forum of Britain, the National Council of Hindu Temples and the Swaminarayan temple at Neasden to discuss matters of terrorism and other matters not least, as he will know, in terms of immigration rules and ministers of religion. However, I take his point seriously. We need to consult all minority communities and, indeed, all communities as fairly and profoundly as possible.

Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of mosques are dedicated to peace and enlightenment, as are the worshippers who attend them? They are precisely the people who suffer the most from the negative perceptions created by extremists. Last summer, the Prime Minister saw a need for the Government to establish powers to close down mosques that fomented extremism. Is that still Government policy?

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening statement, as, I am sure, does the whole House. Everyone will know, not least because of the disparity between the last two sets of demonstrations, that in any community, frankly, it is the extremists who do down the moderates far more than anyone else. The hon. Gentleman said it was suggested that we should consider, in extremis, closing down specific facilities. I understand that we have examined that, but found that it would not be terribly practical, or, as he suggests, fair on the remaining members of the community around a mosque. Working with a community to eradicate extremists would be far more fruitful than simply closing a mosque.

One of the things about which members of all communities are concerned is that the Bill's provisions should be applied even-handedly and it should be clear against whom they are targeted. When the matter was debated in the House, I thought the Government accepted that there had to be a clear link between allegations regarding the glorification of terrorism and incitement—direct and indirect—or reckless disregard of the effect that glorification could have on someone about to commit a terrorist act. Is the Minister aware that several statements that Ministers have made recently to put distance between the view of this House and the amendments of the other place indicate that the Government might not still be thinking that way? Would he like to give some reassurance on that point?

If my hon. Friend wants reassurance that we think that our proposals on glorification are preferable to the Lords amendments, I can certainly give that reassurance, but I suspect that that is not what he is after. On his first point, it is important not only that we focus our terrorism legislation on terrorists and extremists in all communities, but that we are seen to do so. If there is disquiet in any community because it is thought that that is not the case, we need to hear about it and allay fears, not least in the context of the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

Does not the Abu Hamza case show a failure to enforce the existing law over many months, rather than a gap in the law, or a need for yet more offences? Will the Government and the Home Office thus stop using recent events as an excuse to pass yet more legislation and invent new offences, and instead enforce the existing law with more determination and dispatch?

In the first instance, I should say in passing that the gentleman concerned has appealed, so it would be inappropriate for me to say much more. However, in the broadest sense, we do not legislate just for the sake of it—we legislate because there are real and present dangers. The right hon. Gentleman shows in his question a simplistic approach that is, like the comments of the shadow Home Secretary over the weekend, profoundly and utterly irresponsible.

Will my hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that the Government will be tough on incitement, even if they judge that such action might be unpopular in some small, localised communities?

I think that I can give such an assurance. If the point behind my hon. Friend's question is to ask whether we should in any way shackle the police in their interpretation of operational matters on the ground at any given time, whether during a demonstration or otherwise, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that that should not be the case. However, watch this space on subsequent prosecutions.

The Minister is right to draw a distinction between the large and peaceful demonstration that we saw recently and the deplorable, less peaceful, smaller demonstration the week before. He must know that keeping minority communities united against terrorism is a vital weapon in the fight against terror, so how does he respond to Muslim leaders who support democratic values, such as Ajamal Masroor, of the Islamic Society of Britain, who says:

"We have been trying . . . to win a war of ideas with a small number of our young people, and this legislation blows all of that hard work away"?

Why will the Government not listen to moderate Muslim leaders, give up their ineffective anti-authoritarianism, and accept that bad anti-terrorism laws will simply bring the law into disrepute and not make British citizens any safer?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant to describe our approach as anti-authoritarian, but I understand the gist of his remarks.

There are myriad views and opinions throughout the community. First and foremost, we must shape and tailor our anti-terrorism legislation according to what is most effective and the advice that we get from security and police authorities. If, after that, there are messages to send to any community, we must do that to prevent misinterpretation—sometimes malevolent misinterpretation—of laws that go to the heart of the difficulties facing our society.

Whatever differences there may be between the two sides in respect of new laws, is it not encouraging that time and again in the past week we have seen Muslims make it perfectly clear that the hate merchants and agitators do not speak for the overwhelming majority of Muslims living in our country, who appreciate the freedoms and democracy that we have? Is it not important to deal with the small number of hate merchants that we know exist among the clerics?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the entire House does, too. Just this morning, I received a message from representatives of the main mosque in my constituency, voicing precisely the same concerns. They started by saying that, like many others, the community was offended by the representations of the Prophet in the cartoons in the Danish magazine, but they went on to make precisely the same points as my hon. Friend makes. We cannot and should not tailor our response to terror or extremists out of fear of the response from the very terrorists and extremists with whom we are trying to deal.

6. What estimate he has made of the incidence of mental illness in prison. [50395]

The most comprehensive national assessment was published in the Office for National Statistics survey of mental ill health in the prison population in England and Wales in 1997. It indicated that 90 per cent. of prisoners have at least one mental health disorder. Our five-year strategy for reducing reoffending includes a commitment to do more to make sure that people with mental disorders who offend get the treatment that they need.

Further to that answer and to last Thursday's statement, what action do the Government propose to take in respect of the 5,000 prisoners who are regarded as profoundly mentally ill to ensure that, when they are released, they are not turfed out on to the streets, seriously ill and homeless, so that they then live rough and almost certainly reoffend?

We have two main approaches. We work through mental health in-reach teams in prisons, which work with community teams on a care plan. On an offender's release, they work together to pass that individual into the care of a community mental health team in a negotiated transfer. That did not happen before.

My hon. Friend is aware of the national disgrace whereby individuals were freed from mental institutions under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, but found that the only safe and secure place for them was prison and they offended to get back into a secure environment. Can she tell the House how many people who had spent time in a mental institution and who were released under the care in the community programme are in a normal prison today? If she cannot do that today, will she send me a note?

As my hon. Friend predicts, I cannot give him those precise figures without prior notice. However, I can ensure that they are made available to the House. I can also assure him that we have put in place a series of steps to reduce the revolving door of offending and mental ill health. Proposals to amend mental health legislation will enable us to put more robust procedures in place to do that.

Will the Minister also agree to consider the disgraceful situation in which many ex-servicemen find themselves when they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder which exhibits itself as alcoholism and, again, domestic violence, and they end up in prison? Will she consider those people alongside the emergency service people mentioned earlier?

In terms of responsibilities for former servicemen, the hon. Lady's question is probably best directed to the Ministry of Defence. I will ensure that my colleagues in that Department are made aware of it. Offending as a result of people's previous experiences is a critical consideration in everything that we are trying to do to reduce reoffending. She will have seen in the reducing reoffending action plan, which we published last week, that one of our ambitions is to bear down on all the features, including mental ill health, that lead to reoffending, and to have a much more comprehensive programme to achieve that. I can give her the assurance that she seeks when someone has offended and will draw her question to the attention of my colleagues so that we prevent the offending that concerns her.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one difficulty in dealing with prisoners with mental illness is the shortage of psychiatrists working in the prison medical service and the problem of getting transfers to psychiatric hospitals. What progress is being made on recruiting more people with psychiatric qualifications into the prison medical service? Has there been any progress on shortening the time for the transfer of prisoners to psychiatric hospitals?

My hon. Friend is right; that is a substantial challenge. There has been an increase in the number of transfers in recent years. In 2003, 721 prisoners were transferred. In the most recent year, that had increased to 892. Our ambition of ensuring that we have mental health services in prisons that are the equivalent of those in the community is critical to ensure that they work on all fours.

To achieve that, we have done a couple of things that assist in that regard. The first is to reduce the difficulties, through an agreement between the Department of Health and the prisons department, by identifying the primary care trust responsible for mentally ill offenders. That has been communicated in a Prison Service instruction and a letter by the Department of Health. Secondly, we are consulting the Royal College of Psychiatrists about ensuring that—

Order. I expect briefer responses to questions. It is unfair to Back Benchers.

There is no doubt that among the mentally ill in prison are a considerable number of low-level criminals who are repeat offenders. Is it time to review the sentencing guidelines, because many of those people should not be in prison?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a Sentencing Guidelines Council that can take such things into account. He will also be aware that, in our recent reducing reoffending action plan, we ensured that greater emphasis was put on community sentences. If those sentences include the proper support, the end that he mentions should be achieved.

7. What progress is being made in tackling binge drinking. [50396]

The Licensing Act 2003, which came into effect in November 2005, and a series of alcohol misuse enforcement campaigns have been central to the Government's wider strategy to reduce the harms caused through the misuse of alcohol. The results of the recent enforcement campaign show that, in participating basic command unit areas, all violent crime decreased by 11 per cent.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the local police forces, particularly my own force in Northamptonshire, on the excellent results of their Christmas campaign. When the police receive extra powers to tackle binge drinking under the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, will she ensure that there is an equally proactive campaign so that they can use those powers to crack down further on binge drinking?

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I congratulate her on her tenacity and determination in taking a lead in her constituency to make sure that those powers are used. I am delighted that, in the latest enforcement campaign, the police used new powers to issue more than 8,000 penalty notices for disorder and I will certainly make sure that alcohol disorder zones, drinking banning orders and the closure powers in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill are used in a similarly proactive way.

As the Minister knows, the consequences of binge drinking are not confined to vomit in the gutters and fighting in the streets. Some individuals go home quietly and beat up their wives and girlfriends. On 19 January, I was told that it was too early to assess the impact of the new licensing hours on domestic violence. When will we be able see genuine, unspun comparisons, and what steps will the Minister take, not just to deal with the effects but to prevent alcohol-fuelled domestic violence?

The figures showing that violence has been reduced by 11 per cent., and serious violence by 14 per cent. following the latest campaign are not spun. They are absolutely accurate figures based on a comparison between October and December last year. Moreover, the Government have an extremely proud record of massive decreases in domestic violence and other crimes. An advertising campaign will start tomorrow and we are conducting a thorough evaluation of the impact of the licensing changes in five different areas that will look at a range of issues. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the Government's genuine achievements in tackling domestic violence.

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems of binge drinking, but under-age binge drinking, too, causes violence, antisocial behaviour, vandalism and so on. What powers can be given to the police, not only to tackle people who sell alcohol to minors but to ensure that the culprits clean up the mess that they leave behind?

A few months ago, 50 per cent. of supermarkets sold alcohol to under-age youngsters but, following the latest enforcement campaign, the figure has gone down to 17 per cent., which is a dramatic achievement. I am grateful to the supermarkets for the pressure that they have brought to bear on the problem, but there is more that we can do. I am concerned about people urinating and vomiting in the street, which is why I am delighted that several hundred fixed penalty notices have been issued. My hon. Friend raised the important issue of reparation, which is certainly something that we could look at.

In Windsor, a wonderful thing has happened. More policemen were put on the beat in crime and binge-drinking hot spots, and violent crime went down. Is the Minister saying that it is the 24-hour licensing laws that have brought about that change, or is it more policemen on the beat?

I think that it is a combination of things. There are more policemen are on the beat as a result of Government policy—there are an extra 13,000 officers since we came to government, and we will have an extra 24,000 community support officers up and down the country as well. However, the change has also taken place because thousands of young people are no longer thrown out on to the street at the same time, leading to fights for a taxi and to fighting in the kebab shop. The licensing changes are sensible and there has been a reduction in violence. I hope that that continues in the long term and we will certainly monitor the impact to make sure that that is the case.

8. What further steps he plans to take to restrict the ability of individuals to download pornographic images of children from the internet. [50397]

The UK internet industry and the Internet Watch Foundation continue to lead the world in limiting access to illegal images. In April, this work will be further strengthened by the establishment of the new Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

I welcome the work being undertaken by Government and the industry, but a BT survey showed that last week 35,000 attempts were made daily by its internet customers to download child porn websites—a three-fold increase, all blocked by BT's clean feed technology. However, one in five British households still have unrestricted, unfettered access to such illegal images of children being abused. That is outrageous. Will my hon. Friend put the industry on notice that those of its members who refuse to sort out their act had better do so before we introduce regulation to force them to introduce that technology?

I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution not just this afternoon, but throughout the years that she has been in the House, where she has constantly raised the issue, which is of key concern to so many. I also welcome the work that BT has done with its clean feed operation. Eighteen months ago, no sites were blocked because the technology did not exist. BT has introduced the technology and now 80 per cent. of internet service providers use it. The question is how we achieve the 100 per cent. that my hon. Friend and I want to see. I engage in regular discussions with the industry and I am determined that we will hit that 100 per cent., albeit through the voluntary route.

The industry has a role to play, but so do the Government. When I was engaged in discussions with the Government on behalf of constituents recently about analogous sites that promote suicide, the Government responded that they could not do much about it because many of the sites came from overseas. Does the Minister agree that there is a role for the Government to play, leading the way internationally by bringing in a law banning such sites within the United Kingdom, even if we still receive the smut and filth from overseas?

The hon. Gentleman is right that many of the sites are based overseas and it is essential that we work with our international partners to bear down on the problem. May I give him one example? Within the G8, we led the way in pioneering a new international database of child abuse. We have handed the database over to Interpol. It will be possible to put any child abuse image anywhere in the world on the database, which means that we can find the victims and the perpetrators and, working together with our international colleagues, we can bear down on this dreadful problem.

9. What steps he is taking to tackle illegal working by asylum seekers. [50398]

The Government are firmly committed to preventing illegal migrant working and the misuse of our asylum system by those seeking financial advantage, rather than protection. We have significantly reduced the number of unfounded asylum claims since 2002 and increased removals of refused applicants. We have also strengthened legislation relating to employment by reforming section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and by supporting my hon. Friend's initiative on gangmaster licensing. We are introducing new measures for a civil penalty regime and a tougher criminal offence for employers in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.

My hon. Friend is aware that, when asylum seekers are caught working illegally in this country, they are dealt with accordingly. What sentences are in place to deal with unscrupulous employers who lure asylum seeker workers into the country on the false pretence of improving their quality of life?

My hon. Friend raises a fair point. If we are being honest, section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has not dealt with the issue from the employer point of view as successfully as was anticipated. Where it has been successful, that has often been in areas other than under section 8, which is why we considering strengthening the legislation. Last year, when I launched a migrant workers strategy and a statement with the TUC and CBI, both sides were in agreement that it was in nobody's interest to facilitate the arrival or employment of migrants illegally—asylum seekers or otherwise—and that we all need to work to secure a transparent managed migration system, and bear down as heavily as we can on those who employ people illegally, as well as on people who are in the country illegally.

The Minister concentrates his fire on employers, but does he agree that, if asylum seekers were detained while their applications were being processed rather than dispersed around the country, and if more failed asylum seekers were kicked out of the country, there would be fewer asylum seekers working?

In the context of the question and everything else that I have read and heard of the hon. Gentleman, no, I do not agree with him.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether working or not, it is vital that vulnerable asylum seekers receive high-quality advice to prevent exploitation and will he therefore agree to examine the plight of the Leicester refugee and asylum advice project, which faces closure despite providing an invaluable specialist service to vulnerable and often desperate clients?

I do not know the details of the specific case in Leicester to which my hon. Friend refers, but I agree with his general point. We are working closely with the Legal Services Commission as we implement our new asylum model to try to ensure that there is input from legal advisers at the pre-decision level. The greater the integrity of the initial decision on an asylum application, the better will that ripple through the system. I agree with the broad point, but cannot comment on the specifics.

Does the Minister agree that genuine asylum seekers coming here from their country of origin in fear of their lives would not jeopardise their status by deliberately breaking the rules set for them and does he therefore agree that those who are found to be working in this country should have their asylum status cancelled and treated accordingly?

I do not agree with what I think was the broad thrust of that question. Suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman speaks only mildly better gibberish than his namesake.

10. If he will make a statement on the roll-out of the neighbourhood policing model. [50399]

I am glad that it is warming up, Mr. Speaker.

We will ensure that, by 2008, every part of the country will have a dedicated, visible, accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing team. There will be a neighbourhood policing team in every area, covering, typically, one or two council wards, in which every resident will know the name of their local police officer, see them on the street and have their phone number and e-mail address.

I apologise to the House for my slightly hoarse voice, the result of cheering on the Welsh team in a fantastic match at the weekend. Even though the Scottish team was one man down, it was a brilliant match. On the subject of being one man down, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the greatest disadvantages to community policing is when police are pulled away from their duties in the community and that neighbourhood policing models will ensure that those police are embedded much more firmly in the communities that they serve?

My hon. Friend is correct, except perhaps in the rugby team that he supports. It is critical to deal with so-called abstractions from neighbourhood police teams, whether for operations, as he describes, or for some training functions, and one reason why we are reorganising the strategic level of policing is to strengthen neighbourhood policing.

Will the Home Secretary accept that these schemes in the borough of Bexley are so far working well, although we would like them in Blackfen and Lamorbey as well? Will he take on board the fact that there is a serious problem with the existing teams when the officers are taken away for other duties? When the scheme was introduced, we were assured that that would not happen, but certainly in the Metropolitan police area it is happening.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the policy and glad to pay tribute to the Metropolitan police, who have led the development of the policy throughout the country, with its ambition of securing neighbourhood policing in every part of London by spring next year. I am sure that the House will understand that, over the past months, there have been serious public order issues in London that have led to what the hon. Gentleman described, but the Metropolitan police are trying to address those issues.

11. What steps he is taking to reduce offending; and if he will make a statement. [50400]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a five-year strategy for protecting the public and reducing reoffending on 9 February. That will be delivered through strong partnerships. Its key aspects are a named offender manager for every offender, expansion of community sentences, full use of a range of rehabilitations and a genuine aspiration to going straight for every individual with a contract based on strong future prospects of employment, housing and social and family relations.

I recently visited HMP Ashfield near my constituency. I was concerned when I met some 17-year-old lads there to discover that they were due for release in a couple of weeks and that, as yet, the prison authorities have not arranged any accommodation for them to go to on their release. I was even more concerned to hear that there is an 82 per cent. reoffending rate at the institution. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a direct correlation between those two points and can she assure me that the Government's new plans will address that?

My hon. Friend is right about the direct correlation, which is a point that the strategy that we published last week clearly emphasises. She is also right to highlight the current difficulties, but she will be reassured by the fact that, in the first half of this financial year, the number of prisoners with accommodation on release rose by 11 per cent., and we are taking action to ensure that that rise continues.

Does the Minister agree that a problem has arisen because of the lack of research on offending and recidivism in relation to cautions? Reports in Birmingham indicating that somebody is allowed to shop lift once a year without fear of prosecution should create concern.

Any reports suggesting than an offender can get away with it with impunity will create concern on both sides of the House.

12. How many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in Wales. [50401]

The latest figures, as reported to the Home Office by the Courts Service, show that 270 ASBOs have been issued in Wales up to 30 June 2005.

It is good to know that some ASBOs have been issued in Wales. May I convey to my hon. Friend the frustration felt by many of my constituents when either an individual or a family is clearly ruining the peaceful nature of a village, yet, out of some kind of misguided liberalism, sometimes the police and often social workers and others, refuse to engage with the ASBO process?

ASBOs have been a great success and of the 270 ASBOs issued in Wales, 15 have been issued in Rhondda. I understand my hon. Friend's frustration, but the powers are being used in his constituency, and I am sure that his constituents appreciate that. He is right that those powers can have a great effect on the ground and the onus is on local authorities everywhere to see how they can make greater use of them. I am sure that there are grounds in Wales for the greater use of the powers that we have introduced.

13. What assessment he has made of the standard of segregation units in prisons. [50402]

Segregation units in both private and public sector prisons are subject to external inspections by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and audits by the Prison Service standards audit unit on a three-year rolling programme. Prisons are also expected to carry out their own regular internal self-audit procedures. In addition, the independent monitoring board at each establishment undertakes weekly visits.

My constituent, Pauline Day, has raised a number of questions about the death of her son, Paul Day, in a segregation unit. Paul's suicide led to perhaps the longest inquiry into a death in custody, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall seek to secure an Adjournment debate on that issue. I have given the Minister notice that I should like her to name the individual who authorised, as opposed to organised, the transfer of Paul Day from Wandsworth prison to Frankland prison.

The transfer of Paul Day was brokered by the prison and authorised by the directorate of high security prisons operations unit. Since that date, there have been substantial changes to the way in which such transfers are arranged. A Prison Service order issued in July 2005 that sets out the principles for maintaining order in prisons makes it clear that disruptive individuals must be individually case managed and that, where transfer to another establishment is appropriate, the reasons must be properly documented and accompany the prisoner. All transfers are to be on a permanent basis, and they must be approved at management level.

14. What progress has been made on the gateway protection programme; and if he will make a statement. [50403]

The gateway protection programme is a humanitarian programme that has been set up in partnership with the United Nations to re-house some of the world's most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom. So far, we have resettled 285 refugees to the UK and our target is to settle 500 refugees a year under the programme. I want to put on record my thanks to Hull for becoming the sixth local authority to take part in the programme.

I welcome the gateway protection programme. Will the Minister say something about how it will fit in with local community cohesion strategies in areas such as Hull?

It can play an important part in local community cohesion. The early evidence from areas in which authorities have participated in the programme shows that it has been successful in challenging some of the attacks on the notion of political asylum that we have heard in recent years. In Bolton and Sheffield in particular, the towns have rallied around the individuals who have come to them. The programme has been a positive experience for the receiving community and, of course, for the vulnerable individuals who have benefited from the protection that those towns have offered. I expect that the same will be true when refugees come to Hull under the programme.

16. To whom basic command unit commanders will be accountable under the plans for police force restructuring. [50405]

BCU commanders will continue to be directly accountable to their chief constables within the new force structures. They will also, as now, be publicly answerable to the communities that they serve. The roll-out of neighbourhood policing teams by 2008 and the steps that we are taking to improve the effectiveness of crime and disorder reduction partnerships will significantly enhance the responsiveness of the police and their partners in addressing local priorities for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour.

In deciding to coerce West Mercia police into a regional force for the west midlands, against the wishes of local public bodies, members of the public and police professionals, what consideration has the Minister given to the practical implications for local policing of the chief constable having to manage 30 BCU commanders instead of six?

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know that the purpose of moving towards larger, more strategic forces is to improve the quality of policing. The Government made a manifesto commitment to provide a neighbourhood policing team in every community in England and Wales. That means that local people will be able to set priorities and have a real influence on the standards of local policing in their communities. West Mercia, like a range of other forces, will continue to have extremely high-quality neighbourhood policing in which local police officers reflect the priorities of local people.